Posted on 07/24/2008 2:37:18 PM PDT by Domandred
BOISE - U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge has issued an order declaring Joseph Duncan competent to proceed in his death penalty sentencing hearings, rejecting a motion from defense attorneys to declare the convicted killer mentally incompetent.
The judge’s decision ends nearly three months of haggling between the parties in the case over the killer’s mental state, which was kicked off when he requested to sideline his legal team and instead act as his own attorney. Lodge then ordered a mental evaluation to confirm that Duncan was mentally competent to waive his constitutional right to an attorney. Before it was completed, however, the defense filed a motion to declare Duncan incompetent – which would have halted the sentencing proceedings until the defendant was again declared competent. They submitted reports from their own mental health experts to boost that argument. The judge ordered a second, more-extensive mental evaluation, for which Duncan was sent to the Bureau of Prisons in Seattle for a 45-day observation.
That’s now been completed, and today, the judge, without any further hearings, declared Duncan competent to proceed. He set a hearing for Monday on Duncan’s request to act as his own attorney.
Duncan already has pleaded guilty to all charges in a 10-count federal indictment for kidnapping and molesting two North Idaho children and killing one; he awaits only sentencing. He’s also admitted to killing the children’s older brother, mother and mother’s fiancé in a bloody attack at the family’s Wolf Lodge Bay home in order to kidnap the two children.
Both court-ordered evaluations showed that Duncan is competent to go through sentencing, the judge found. “No formal competency hearing is necessary in this case as there is no bona fide doubt about Mr. Duncan’s competency,” he wrote in his order.
He added, “The evidence in the record in this case demonstrates that Mr. Duncan does not lack the present ability to rationally and factually understand the proceedings against him. There is no evidence that Mr. Duncan suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders him incompetent to waive his right to counsel. Though he may have expressed unusual views or ideas, Mr. Duncan has not displayed any irrational behavior to the Court. Mr. Duncan has appeared in court numerous times during which he has appeared to be rational and his behavior has been appropriate. While in court, Mr. Duncan has been polite, followed courtroom etiquette, and has appeared to be actively involved with his counsel.”
The judge also wrote that he had reviewed Duncan’s letters, telephone transcripts and blogs, and they revealed “a level of intelligence more than sufficient to evidence his understanding of this proceeding and his competency to proceed.”
Lodge took note of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Indiana v. Edwards, that changed the standard for when mentally ill defendants must be allowed to represent themselves, and allowed judges to find that some defendants are mentally competent to undergo court proceedings, but not to act as their own lawyers.
“In light of this opinion, the Court must assure itself of: Whether Mr. Duncan is competent to go forward, whether he is competent to voluntarily and knowingly waive his right to counsel, and whether Mr. Duncan lacks the mental capacity to conduct his trial defense unless represented by counsel,” Lodge wrote. “Having found Mr. Duncan to be competent to proceed, the Court must next determine whether or not Mr. Duncan still desires (to) waive his right to counsel and choose instead to represent himself in spite of the Court’s admonishments against doing so in a case of this nature.”
That’ll happen at Monday’s hearing, the judge indicated. “If it is determined that he still desires to do so, the Court may then set a limited competency hearing to determine whether Mr. Duncan should be allowed to represent himself with standby counsel or if it is necessary to order that he proceed with counsel to ensure the integrity and efficiency of a fair trial.”
Judge Lodge repeatedly cited the recent Supreme Court decision as guiding the next steps he’ll take in Duncan’s case. “The Court must therefore determine whether or not there are any unusual circumstances that would prevent the Defendant from having a fair trial if he were allowed to represent himself,” he wrote. “Whether or not unusual circumstances exist is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/media/pdf/20080724_duncan_CompetentOrderRed.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.